agentpay
Agentic-payments ecosystem brief: x402/MPP/USDC events with episode citations (paid, $0.002/req or pass).
Args:
limit: max events (1-50).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
terminal
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does mention the cost model ('paid, $0.002/req or pass') and mentions 'episode citations' as part of the output. However, it does not clarify whether this is read-only, what 'pass' means, or any other side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and uses a clear 'Args' section. However, the first sentence is cryptic and packed with jargon ('x402/MPP/USDC'), which may confuse agents. Still, every sentence adds some information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and context. It mentions 'episode citations' but does not describe the structure of the brief or what 'pass' means. The tool appears to be a niche payments ecosystem brief, but important details are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains the 'limit' parameter with a range (1-50), which is not present in the schema (schema only has default 20). This adds meaningful value beyond the input schema, even though the schema has only one parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Agentic-payments ecosystem brief' but lacks a specific verb like 'get' or 'list'. It mentions x402/MPP/USDC events, which suggests content, but doesn't clearly state what action the tool performs. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like agentpay_latest.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agentpay_latest or other search tools. The mention of 'paid' hints at a different access tier, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are grouped by domain (funding, deals, transcripts, etc.) and each has a specific focus: basic list, latest, search, or summary. While some pairs like deals/deals_search and funding/funding_latest could be confused, the descriptions clearly differentiate them. The boundaries are mostly clear, but the sheer number of tools requires careful reading.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent across the set. Some tools use bare nouns (funding, deals, catalogues), some use verb prefixes (get_article, list_threads, search_wire), and many use suffixes (_latest, _search, _summary). The position and style of modifiers vary between domains, making it difficult to predict tool names.
Tool Count3/5
With 27 tools, the server is on the heavy end, which aligns with its terminal-style scope covering many distinct data domains (news, transcripts, funding, retail, model watch). The count is justified by the breadth, but it feels dense and could be split into smaller, more focused servers.
Completeness4/5
The server provides comprehensive coverage for most domains: listing, retrieving details, searching, and domain-specific variants (latest, hot, sentiment). Minor gaps exist, such as no way to fetch a specific funding event by ID or a latest deals tool, but these are easy workarounds.